NJLawguy: You seem to claim that if Palestinians bomb Israelis then whatever action the Israeli government takes subsequently cannot be categorized as excessive. This seems patently false. A perfect example that seems to play out every week or so is when a Palestinian blows up a Israeli soldier and in return not only are several Palestinians killed, but whole villages are razed. Here is a article from the Human Rights Watch organization that supports my point.

Research Shows Israeli Pattern of Excessive ForcePalestinian Authority Also Fails in Duty to Protect Civilians (New York, October 17, 2000) - Human Rights Watch today released results of a week-long investigation that condemns Israeli police and security forces for a pattern of using excessive, lethal force in clashes with demonstrators over the past two weeks...

I would not describe the attack of Israel on the day the UN voted to call Israel a soverign nation as falling under the hisotry of jewish oppression. The area west of jordan had long been contemplated as a zionist state . Arabs had continually voiced their dislike for this idea, as can be seen by their reaction to Jewish immigration in the 20's. Considering the plan put forward by the U.N assembly whereby the British mandate of palestine would be split into a Jewish and Palestinian state, despite the fact that Jews made up only a small percentage of the population, I am not sure the opposition the Middle eastern countries had towards Israel was totally unfounded. Zionism was never a really popular idea for most countries, and Israel only came into being because of the atrocities of the Holocaust. While I think the Holocaust has shown that a Jewish state is necessary, the way it came about was unjust. Thus, I would not include the Arab-Israeli war as an example of Jewish oppression, as you seem to believe it is. When a small portion of the population is given the majority (and best) of the land as well as the major resources of a country I believe that is reason to oppose the creation of such a plan. As one web site states: The Arab leadership opposed the two-state plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). They criticised the amount and quality of land given to Israel. The Jews had been offered 55% percent of the land when they only owned 7%.

I think you're a little bit melodramatic about the future of the middle east. Likely, Arabs and Palestinians will simply be killing each other 50 years from now.

Logged

jgruber

You can justify a position on Israel/Palestine using history and statistics. How many live there and how long they go back. Who has the most victims, who has the most support. Who the US supports and who the UN condemns.

But these arguments seem to me to merely entrench existing opinion and positions. This is one argument that can't be won.

Whether you argue that Israel is defending itself or that Palestinians are justified, it comes down to one thing. People are killing and being killed. Lives are being destroyed all in the name of security and justice, but there is no security and no justice.

When people are ready to seek peace with mutual respect and a blind eye to the past, then maybe there will be hope. Until then, invest in arms manufacturers and pray the finger stays off the middle east button.